• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 무료게임 (Https://Fkwiki.Win/) did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 observations, 프라그마틱 게임 documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.